Posez n’importe quelle question sur les cours, conférences, exercices, recherches, actualités, etc. de l’EPFL ou essayez les exemples de questions ci-dessous.
AVERTISSEMENT : Le chatbot Graph n'est pas programmé pour fournir des réponses explicites ou catégoriques à vos questions. Il transforme plutôt vos questions en demandes API qui sont distribuées aux différents services informatiques officiellement administrés par l'EPFL. Son but est uniquement de collecter et de recommander des références pertinentes à des contenus que vous pouvez explorer pour vous aider à répondre à vos questions.
The Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) and North Carolina State University are developing a high-resolution multi-physics core solver for pressurized water reactor (PWR) analysis in Cartesian geometry, using the neutron transport code nTRACER and two machine learning (ML) models providing thermal–hydraulic (T/H) feedback. This work presents the coupling of nTRACER/ML, comparing the solver with the verified core solver nTRACER/CTF, in terms of accuracy and computation costs, for steady-state and cycle analysis, with the presented results and their interpretation focusing primarily on performance improvements. nTRACER/ML shows strong agreement with nTRACER/CTF in power and coolant predictions for hot full power, with maximum deviations of 1.01% in assembly power and 2.63 °C in coolant temperature (root mean square error [RMSE]: 0.65 °C). Fuel temperature predictions are also good, with centerline temperature differences reaching up to 32.96 °C and an RMSE of 5.55 °C. As exposure increases, power deviations grow up to 3.33% axially and 4.13% in 3D assembly power at 392.3 effective full power days (EFPDs). Coolant temperature discrepancies decrease with burnup, while fuel temperature errors increase, with centerline differences peaking at 36.24 °C (RMSE: 8.30 °C). Despite its limitations, nTRACER/ML shows sufficient agreement with nTRACER/CTF in both neutronic and T/H metrics, making it a practical low-fidelity alternative for high-resolution simulations, particularly because it runs 3–4 times faster than CTF while using only approximately 1% of the CPU time.